Skip to comments.Reagan handled worse U.S. economic situation much better
Posted on 08/02/2012 8:08:05 AM PDT by xzins
America is all about private enterprise, and without leadership that believes in the primacy of the private sector, it cant succeed.
The U.S. Commerce Department reported Friday the U.S. economy grew only 1.5 percent in the second quarter, down from 2.0 percent the previous period.
Consumer spending slowed under the weight of growing pessimism about the effectiveness of U.S. President Barack Obama's economic program and a growing sense that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney won't unseat him. The president leads in polls in most swing states and the president has made clear his intention to double down on interventionist economic policies.
The trade deficit worsened, increasing its drag on domestic demand and gross domestic product. Administration curbs on domestic oil production and his failure to address Chinese currency manipulation -- the two principal causes of the gapping $600 billion trade deficit and hole in domestic demand -- slow growth more and more each quarter. In the second quarter, the increase in the trade deficit subtracted 7-10ths of a percentage point from growth, or more than $100 billion and 1 million jobs.
The president argues he inherited a big economic mess but so too did Ronald Reagan. During Reagan's first term, unemployment peaked at 10.4 percent in contrast to 10 percent during Obama's tenure.
Reagan cut taxes, followed through on deregulation initiated by President Jimmy Carter and put his bets on the private sector -- when he faced the voters the economy was growing at better than 6 percent.
Obama has shut down much offshore and Alaskan oil production, invested in failing alternative energy projects, and emphasized heavy regulation and state direction of the economy -- is growth rate during the current recovery is 2.2 percent.
During Reagan's first term, optimism caused more Americans to seek jobs. The percentage of adults participating in the labor force rose and unemployment fell to 7.2 percent by Election Day.
Since Obama took office, record numbers of Americans have become discouraged and quit looking for work, and the unemployment rate has not fallen nearly as much as it did for Reagan. It hangs at more than 8 percent and few economists expect it to fall much further.
The difference is plain: Reagan acted to unleash the creative energies of the private sector while Obama has moved in the opposite direction.
America is all about private enterprise, and without leadership that believes in the primacy of the private sector, it can't succeed.
(Peter Morici is an economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, and widely published columnist.)
Gingrich and Santorum warned that Romney was not the man to unseat Obama.
This was Perry's and Trump's issue.
It hasn't even been touched yet in this campaign. Coal is continuing to be closed here in Ohio, and an effective campaign would be using that to bury Obama. But so far we are getting very little.
Smiles and nice....McCain Part II.
Not sure how much I'd trust a guy that frames his analysis this way. Consumer spending slowed because more people have less disposable income...not because they believe obviously manipulated polls released by the New York Times. If this guy's point is that Reagan did better, fine, but Reagan wasn't performing as well at this point in the election campaign as Romney is...at least in polls that aren't weighted to a ridiculous extent toward a massive Democrat turnout.
I think this guy needs to go back to the drawing board on his analysis...he's got a bit of it right but he's pretty lazy overall.
I’m hoping many people won’t listen to the lamestream media about how much obama is leading, I pray people aren’t that stupid, and stay home on election day. This election is going to be brutal and corrupt, but I think Romney could pull it off.
I’m in Ohio, a place Romney should be furiously engaged, but there’s very, very little of his message to see.
Obama is attacking and even Rasmussen says he’s leading here now.
Reagan did have one huge advantage that is not available today, which is good Federal Reserve policy. The recession at the start of the Reagan years was a monetary policy recession.
Paul Volcker, to choke off double-digit inflation, raised short term interest rates into the teens.
But once oil started crashing (and continued to do so for years) Volcker could start lowering rates, and did so.
Today the monetary policy gears are stripped. There’s no traction from cutting rates (and now that cannot even be cut) because the transmission mechanism through the economy has been destroyed by the serial bubbles.
It will take time and good congressional policy to get through this. Time is inevitable, but good policy is hard to come by.
Respect for America and Americans
There is NO other place to begin if you insist on passing yourself off as a President of the United States of America!
I’m in Nevada, a place Romney should be furiously engaged as well...and his messages are as prevalent as Obama’s. So Obama does a big dump of money in early August in Ohio (probably to try and increase his numbers in the short term), that is the normal give and take of the campaign and particularly considering how early it is that is no reason to say the election is lost. Obama is going to dump huge amounts of money in places but Romney’s campaign would be foolish to map their strategy based on what Obama is doing from moment to moment.
Would you prefer it if Romney spent all his money now and had far less remaining to counter Obama in October? That is what Obama is doing right now, a furious and most likely vain effort to buttress his numbers so it doesn’t get out of hand, given how poor his record is, hoping that he can raise enough later to keep it going. Of course, Obama hoped that the stimulus would keep things going too, and that really worked out well for him.
Romney ought to simply call Peter Morici and ask what he, Romney, should do next...or perhaps just call one of the p240.
My memory says the end of the Carter years was worse than today. Unemployment was 10+%, but interest rates for homes was 10-13% and inflation was about the same.
Having lived through both, I can tell you that for a middle class guy that Carter was worse. There was no way to afford a house, and owning one seemed like a far off dream.
There was no way to plan finances because prices went through the roof.
Rick Santorum proved that it doesn’t take money. Presence and hard work and local coverages make up for an awful lot. The guy should be in 4 different spots every day making it on 4 different 6 oclock local stations.
Obama, by the way, can spend because he knows the media will cover him the last 8 weeks of the campaign. That’s why he’s spending now to define Romney. Romney should expect the same kind of coverage from Fox, given their support of him since 2010.
And, yes, I want to see a candidate fighting back with the resources that they have.
Oh, in a national general election it most definitely does take money - incredible amounts of it. Money overcomes everything...almost. Money is how a Marxist/Fascist fool like Obama could get elected.
We all want to see a candidate fight back. I think Romney is fighting back and being proactive to boot...but just shotgun blast, willy-nilly do-something disease won’t get it done. That’s what Obama is doing and I propose to you that it is failing miserably.
Rick Santorum is not a good example...as great a guy as he is he couldn’t under the most optimistic circumstances have launched a successful national campaign. He’s a great niche candidate but that’s the best he could hope for - to end up as the last man standing. He did great, better than anyone could ever have expected but he over-performed and it wouldn’t have carried over into a general election campaign.
This article assumes dear leader and Reagan have the same goals.